OpenText UFT One vs froglogic Squish comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
froglogic Logo
3,564 views|1,728 comparisons
OpenText Logo
11,584 views|7,145 comparisons
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between froglogic Squish and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
To learn more, read our detailed OpenText UFT One vs. froglogic Squish Report (Updated: March 2024).
765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"I like the dashboard. It's virtual, and you can see the customer results. I can do it at night and in the morning. I think it also automatically emails results.""This product can work with QT applications and cross-cut from them on Windows or Mac.""I find it very user-friendly and easy to start working with. The main benefit for me is that it allows testing applications developed in the Qt language. This capability makes Squish a game-changer, as it's the only tool I've found that enables automation for applications written in Qt. I appreciate three main aspects. Firstly, the documentation is excellent. Secondly, I value the way the tool efficiently locates elements during testing. These are the two aspects I particularly like.""froglogic Squish is one of the most desired solutions if you are having a Qt as a framework and if you are looking at GUI regression testing. froglogic is a part of Qt as a company."

More froglogic Squish Pros →

"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high.""The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms.""UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support.""The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier.""With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files.""Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways.""The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments.""It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."

More OpenText UFT One Pros →

Cons
"There had been a lot of improvements with froglogic Squish already. There were some scenarios in which this particular solution was available in different flavors. They have pulled everything together in one solution. There were some monitoring systems, which were missing out from the solution earlier. They have a centralized dashboard for monitoring the test cases and their execution. It's a full-blown solution, there are not many glitches in terms of something missing out of the package.""The price could be better.""ID could be improved with suggestions of names, variables or class.""I'm relatively new to Squish, so I'm not familiar with all its pros and cons. Currently, I haven't identified any specific improvements. However, one feature I miss is Git integration within the tool. In my previous experience with Selenium and Python in PyCharm, it was straightforward to create and review changes before pushing them. I haven't found a similar option in Squish, and having an integrated tool for managing conflicts would be beneficial in certain scenarios where collaboration is involved."

More froglogic Squish Cons →

"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS.""I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications.""One area for improvement is its occasional slowness.""I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved.""The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails.""It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower.""The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java.""One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."

More OpenText UFT One Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "The price could be better. I believe each developer license costs about 6000 or 7000 Euros per year."
  • "It is expensive."
  • More froglogic Squish Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
  • "The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
  • "It's an expensive solution."
  • "For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
  • "The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
  • "The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
  • "The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
  • "The price is one aspect that could be improved."
  • More OpenText UFT One Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:I'm relatively new to Squish, so I'm not familiar with all its pros and cons. Currently, I haven't identified any specific improvements. However, one feature I miss is Git integration within the tool… more »
    Top Answer:I use Froglogic Squish for desktop UI testing.
    Top Answer:We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well… more »
    Top Answer:My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
    Top Answer:The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on… more »
    Ranking
    13th
    Views
    3,564
    Comparisons
    1,728
    Reviews
    3
    Average Words per Review
    468
    Rating
    8.7
    2nd
    Views
    11,584
    Comparisons
    7,145
    Reviews
    20
    Average Words per Review
    694
    Rating
    7.9
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus UFT One, UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
    Learn More
    Overview

    Reliable GUI Test Automation that works.

    Use Squish for the automation of your cross-platform desktop, mobile, embedded and web GUI tests.

    Testing the user interface of today's applications is a very complex and error-prone task. Automating this task is challenging, but approached correctly very rewarding.

    The Squish GUI Tester is the tool of choice for several thousand companies worldwide and a 100% cross-platform tool, features

    • Desktop, Mobile, Embedded & Web Applications
    • include Qt, QtQuick, QML, Java, AWT, Swing, SWT, RCP, JavaFx, Windows, Mac, Tk, 4Js, iOS, Android, Embedded (Qt, Windows, Java) and Web, HTML5, Flex & JavaApplets.
    • testing on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, Unix. Mobile and Embedded testing on Android, iOS, embedded Linux and RTOSes such as QNX
    • Eclipse-based IDE
    • based object identification & Toolkit API Support
    • tests in your choice of Python, JavaScript, Perl, Ruby & Tcl
    • BDD tests with built-in (Gherkin) Feature File recording, playback & reporting
    • testing capabilities
    • complete with drill-down details, execution statistics and multiple output formats
    • options with many ALM and Continuous Integration tools for executing and managing tests as well as a complete command-line interface
    Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications. Read white paper
    Sample Customers
    Google, Nokia, Pfizer, Siemens, Synopsys, Airbus, Boeing, Mercedes Benz, Disney, Shell, Reuters, Vodafone, XILINX, GE, Ericsson
    Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
    Top Industries
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company19%
    Manufacturing Company14%
    Healthcare Company9%
    Government6%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm32%
    Computer Software Company16%
    Insurance Company10%
    Healthcare Company10%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Manufacturing Company11%
    Government7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business53%
    Midsize Enterprise11%
    Large Enterprise37%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business18%
    Midsize Enterprise19%
    Large Enterprise62%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise75%
    Buyer's Guide
    OpenText UFT One vs. froglogic Squish
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText UFT One vs. froglogic Squish and other solutions. Updated: March 2024.
    765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    froglogic Squish is ranked 13th in Test Automation Tools with 17 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Test Automation Tools with 89 reviews. froglogic Squish is rated 9.0, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of froglogic Squish writes "An all-in-one feature that can cross-cut from QT applications". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". froglogic Squish is most compared with SmartBear TestComplete, Ranorex Studio, Eggplant Test, Katalon Studio and Selenium HQ, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite. See our OpenText UFT One vs. froglogic Squish report.

    See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.

    We monitor all Test Automation Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.